Farm Financial Programs, Land Practices, Climate and Market Risks, and Croplands & Grassland
Research Questions: (1) What are the similarities and differences in farmers’ and financial professionals’ perceptions and experiences with agricultural financial instruments for grain and grass-based production? (2) What individual and regional factors explain farmers’ and financial professionals’ perceptions and experiences with agricultural financial instruments for grain and grass-based production? (3) Is farmer enrollment in agricultural financial instruments (crop insurance, agricultural loans, and cost-share) associated with particular types of land practice adoption? (4) Why are agricultural financial instruments associated or not with land practice adoption?
Methods: Surveys and interviews across eight states in the Upper Midwest, including row crop, forage, grass-based livestock, and confinement livestock production farmers, financial professionals, and private land advisors.
Main Findings: (1) Agricultural financial instruments are perceived as of higher quality for grain-based than grass-based production. (2) Farmers with frequent engagement with network events, technical service providers, farmer organizations, and financial professionals, are more likely to perceive the quality of financial instruments as high. (3) Crop insurance, agricultural loans, and conservation cost-share programs have complex associations with conservation practices. (4) The negative association between conservation practice adoption and financial instruments could be mitigated by conservationist and civic-minded identities. A Conservationist identity indicates that farmers value environmental outcomes, while a civic-minded identity means they view themselves as community leaders.
This research offers valuable insights into the existing agricultural financial support systems, aiming to inform a more inclusive and equitable financial framework in agriculture. This research contributes to the broader understanding of financial instruments in sustainable agricultural development and highlights the need for financial policy adjustments to enhance conservation practice adoption.
Products:
1. Lu, Yu, Adena R. Rissman. Comparing Farm Financial Support Between Croplands and Grasslands in the Upper Midwest, USA.
2. Lu, Yu, Adena R. Rissman. Agricultural Financial Instruments’ Roles in Conservation Practices in the Upper Midwest, USA.
Grant Acknowledgements:
1. NSF INFEWS/T1: Sustaining Food, Energy, and Water Security in Agricultural Landscapes of the Upper Mississippi River Basin 1855996
2. NSF Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant (DDRIG) Decision, Risk and Management Sciences Program (DRMS) 2417586
3. Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems Graduate Student Summer Grant
Methods: Surveys and interviews across eight states in the Upper Midwest, including row crop, forage, grass-based livestock, and confinement livestock production farmers, financial professionals, and private land advisors.
Main Findings: (1) Agricultural financial instruments are perceived as of higher quality for grain-based than grass-based production. (2) Farmers with frequent engagement with network events, technical service providers, farmer organizations, and financial professionals, are more likely to perceive the quality of financial instruments as high. (3) Crop insurance, agricultural loans, and conservation cost-share programs have complex associations with conservation practices. (4) The negative association between conservation practice adoption and financial instruments could be mitigated by conservationist and civic-minded identities. A Conservationist identity indicates that farmers value environmental outcomes, while a civic-minded identity means they view themselves as community leaders.
This research offers valuable insights into the existing agricultural financial support systems, aiming to inform a more inclusive and equitable financial framework in agriculture. This research contributes to the broader understanding of financial instruments in sustainable agricultural development and highlights the need for financial policy adjustments to enhance conservation practice adoption.
Products:
1. Lu, Yu, Adena R. Rissman. Comparing Farm Financial Support Between Croplands and Grasslands in the Upper Midwest, USA.
2. Lu, Yu, Adena R. Rissman. Agricultural Financial Instruments’ Roles in Conservation Practices in the Upper Midwest, USA.
Grant Acknowledgements:
1. NSF INFEWS/T1: Sustaining Food, Energy, and Water Security in Agricultural Landscapes of the Upper Mississippi River Basin 1855996
2. NSF Doctoral Dissertation Research Improvement Grant (DDRIG) Decision, Risk and Management Sciences Program (DRMS) 2417586
3. Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems Graduate Student Summer Grant
|
|
|